Which makes better sense of morality: secular humanism or Christianity? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Which makes better sense of morality: secular humanism or Christianity?

Debate Information

The debate is not about God's existence; it is about which is more reasonable or better able to make sense of morality.

Thoughts?
Jones_1729GnosticChristian
A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    Christian derivation of morality does not make sense to me even under the assumption that god exists. Morality must be derived from logic and observations made in the real world, not from someone's authority, even if that someone has created the Universe you live in.
    If hypothetically I create a virtual world and populate it with self-aware NPCs, then create my avatar in that world, show up and say, "Hey, guys, I am your creator, and I think that it is moral for you to murder exactly 9 NPCs per day" (in that world every killed NPC respawns after a few minutes) - then these NPCs would be fully right in saying, "Oh yeah? And we think that it is moral for you to stop pestering us and go back to your basement".

    As far as secular humanism goes, it seems to come down to the idea that some sort of a divine authority is not necessary for derivation of human morality. That is obviously true, but it says nothing about how exactly that morality should be derived and from what. Unfortunately, most secularists appear to derive their morality from "secular versions of god" - what I mean by this is that they do not ground their morality in hard logical principles, but, instead, from an arbitrary set of axioms that are not true axioms and that are up to the practical validation or falsification. One of the most common axioms, for instance, is that it is moral to sacrifice one's well-being for the sake of others, and that it is immoral to pursue one's well-being above that of others - an axiom that seems completely bonkers to me and that, in an indirect way, assumes that good is bad and bad is good; it is a complete inversion of any functional value system.

    I think that a more interesting question would be the following: is morality a product of logic and reason (and therefore, as mathematics or physics, allows for a methodology giving a unique answer to any question), or is it a product of mere social convention (and therefore, as currency or language, can be anything that is convenient for people to use)? If it is the former, then it must necessarily be secular, and it can be scientifically studied and developed; if it is the latter, then it can very easily derive from religion, god, general secretary or any other entity, as long as it (at least, superficially) works.
    SkepticalOneexconOakTownAdallased25
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    One should point out that humanism and secularism do not naturally go hand and hand. Christians can also be humanists. The transcendental movement in the 1900s was based in Christian humanistic spirituality.  

    It's also worth pointing out that secularism is not the antithesis of religions, in this case specifically, Christianity. So secularism doesn't necessarily mean atheism when the word secularism is being used. Secularism is just the concept of the separation of church and state. In other words, secularism just means legal precedent and government institutions are not bound to religious decrees.

    Virtually anything is a forgivable sin in Christianity. So long as you embrace Jesus as your Lord and savior, you can be forgiven. You can murder and still go to heaven.   

    Humanistic secularists do not inherently accept that any kind of afterlife is a given truth. They assert that we can never truly know that an afterlife can exist and this could indeed be our only life on earth. So the humanistic secularist approach would contend that it is immoral to take someone's life because it may very well be their only life. Just the sheer appeal to empathy is a more logical approach to morality. 

    One might find a problem with the humanistic secularists approach as it does not embrace any solid platform for redemption and leaves it up to societies themselves to figure out it's own principles for forgiveness, if any at all. Christianity stresses forgiveness as an inherently moral good. Humanism does embrace redemption as an ideal, but humanism alone does not emphasize it as a moral good. Strict secularism would have no inherent principle of redemption in place like humanism does, but most especially like Christianity does.                

    If you consider the law to be a moral compass that is separate from the philosophical or religious moral principles in the OP, and you believe legal precedent is indeed a separate moral code in and of itself, I would argue that the law can be the best moral compass known to humankind. Objectivism is based on using the law (specifically the law based on the US constitution) as an objective moral principle in place of religion or philosophy. But I could see why some may not consider legal precedent a moral principle, but instead, a social or political principle. But I still contend that the law is indeed a moral principle in and of itself.     
    SkepticalOne
  • @MayCaesar

    what I mean by this is that they do not ground their morality in hard logical principles, but, instead, from an arbitrary set of axioms that are not true axioms and that are up to the practical validation or falsification.

    What hard logical principles did you have in mind?

    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @piloteer

    One should point out that humanism and secularism do not naturally go hand and hand. Christians can also be humanists.

    Agreed 

    So secularism doesn't necessarily mean atheism when the word secularism is being used.

    Agreed. 

    One might find a problem with the humanistic secularists approach as it does not embrace any solid platform for redemption

    Unless you're referring to metaphysical redemption, I don't think their will be much of a difference between the two systems here. Forgiveness can be hit or miss depending on circumstance and sect. For instance, a family might shun their gay son rather than forgive his 'sin' and then there's the Westboro Baptist church and preachers like Greg Locke (which are far from forgiving).

    But I could see why some may not consider legal precedent a moral principle, but instead, a social or political principle. But I still contend that the law is indeed a moral principle in and of itself. 

    I am very much of the opinion that morality should not be legislated and law is only loosely related to morality.

    piloteerPlaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    SkepticalOne said:

    What hard logical principles did you have in mind?
    Same as in any other field. When one wants to build a bridge, they do not say, "bridge building is subjective, so anything goes", and devise a design and construction approach that somehow feel right to them - instead, they do proper research and rely on proven laws and designs during construction. Similarly, morality can be defined (as per Aristotle) as a set of principles helping one live a good life, "good life" meaning happy and fulfilled life - as such, it is not arbitrary, but should be grounded in reality, in observations, formulation of testable predictions and experimentation, and so on. Morality can (and should) be approached with the scientific method.

    For instance, one of the cornerstones of my moral system is mutually beneficial interaction with people: I consider a human interaction to be good if at the end of it all participants are better off than they were prior to it. Now, one can arrive at such a view through many different ways: libertarians usually take it as an axiom, economists see it as maximizing market efficiency and thus desirable, Buddhists may argue from the perspective of natural balance... But all of these miss the mark as far as this being a moral position go, because they do not actually connect this position with improving the "goodness" of one's life.
    I arrived at this position empirically, by observing that mutually beneficial interactions form connections between the people that can be used to one's advantage, that I personally feel good when others feel good, that this principle aligns with my other values - and connected it with my general life philosophy centered around independence and freedom of the individual. I can argue for it as being the right position for me on purely logical grounds.

    Virtually all moral systems out there, ultimately, come down to either circular reasoning, or blind faith. In both cases they are not grounded in logic, therefore are arbitrary. That is why you routinely run into two extreme views on morality: one view posits that morality is universal and derived from "god" or "nation" or whatever, and another posits complete relativity and leads to questions of the following kind: "Who are you to tell Saudi men how to treat their women? It is just their culture". When your ideas are not grounded in reality, then these are the only logical conclusions of them: either they are to be accepted blindly, or they are just a random drop in the ocean of equally valid random ideas.

    Ayn Rand is the only philosopher I am familiar with who, at least, attempted to build a proper moral philosophy. She failed miserably, and her arguments are full of holes - but, at least, she acknowledged and justified the validity of the approach. Others have not managed to do even that. It has always been puzzling to me that even the best philosophers' approaches to morality have always been so clunky.
    piloteerSkepticalOne
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited July 27
    @MayCaesar

    Ayn Rand was a huge fan of Dostoevsky. She said the moral principles outlined in his literature easily fit in with objectivism. So Dostoevsky was a devout Christian ,nationalist, socialist, transcendentalist who is widely considered to be the first existential writer (notes from the underground), and he was a huge influence on Ayn Rand who was one of the most renowned atheists who espoused rational objectivism. Christianity, transcendentalism, existentialism, nationalism, and socialism can all be called very much NOT objective, and yet Dostoevskys' influence on Rands' body of work is profound, and kind of ironic. 

    Transcendentalism and existentialism were highly individualistic. The reason transcendentalism is called that is because it does not embrace empiricism, but instead seeks to find a priori to the "fundamental principles of human knowledge", therefore it tries to "transcend" empiricism. Basically, the overall message of transcendentalism is that we are all from the same place. Dostoevsky says we are born from "God's grace", but the message still works if we understand that we are all beings that grew from this earth. This is used as an axiom in transcendentalism which gives it a deeply humanistic aura, and that message is hard to refute as being a priori to empirical observations.   

    Of course morality evolves and is certainly not objective, but I believe a moral principle based on the juxtaposition between Rand and Dostoevsky can be a profoundly robust moral principle. I politely urge you to read, but most likely re-read for you because we know how you Russians love your Dostoevsky, and also look into Henry David Thoreau if you haven't already, and compare them with Rands objectivism and you may find that most of it works in perfect harmony together as Ayn Rand openly claimed.             
    MayCaesar
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited July 27
    @piloteer ;

    I am very much of the opinion that morality should not be legislated and law is only loosely related to morality.

    I then challenge you to demonstrate how legal principles are not derived from morality and why the law should not be used to some extent to reflect contemporary social morality or vice versa. Don't be surprised when you are describing laws how your description will match any typical description of a morality.   

    You make a good point about how not all sects of Christianity fully embrace forgiveness.  
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2925 Pts   -  
    @piloteer
    I then challenge you to demonstrate how legal principles are not derived from morality
    Funny challenge, considering its ambitious scope... To make that "demonstration", one would need to be able to actually close the debate between Legal Positivism, Legal Realism and Natural Law in general Jurisprudence... I was not aware it was a settled question. Care to share any pointers?
    DeeSkepticalOne
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 28
    @piloteer

                           It is not a novel that should be thrown aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”

                                              ---- Dorothy Parker about Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand



    but I believe a moral principle based on the juxtaposition between Rand and Dostoevsky can be a profoundly robust moral principle.

    What would such a principle look like? Rand was told Nietzsche had beaten her to her ideas “naturally”.  Philosophy has its uses but is extremely limited and has little practical use in the real world , there is not one thing a philosopher could  take from a seminar and apply in the real world  
    Philosophers are egotistical navel gazers mostly with a few exceptions 

    On a Philosophy forum recently I asked one simple question and was buried immediately in reams of text from several philosophers who of course threw in terms such as …a posteriori , a priori , quali, noumenon (pl..-mena), etc , etc,

    I would be hard put to find a bigger bunch of self centered egotists on the planet , they are only interested it seems in making philosophy as a subject elitist and as deliberately prohibitive as possible 
    How many questions have philosophers resolved since they were first posed ….Zero , it’s like a backslapping club for an elitist bunch to demonstrate who can hold forth using the most deliberately vague and difficult language they can think of 

    One philosopher I really like who makes his points beautifully without the is David Hume who also admitted more or less that philosophy was as it could solve nor resolve anything , I agree



  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    God does exist.  It makes more sense to believe in God.  There is more water on the earth than dry land.  The water came out of God.  It is what he started out with.  There is water all around.  It's in the atmosphere.  It is in us.  When Jesus was on the cross, he was pierced in his side and water and blood came out.  Because the water is a part of everything.   The water came out of God.  We are all connected to God.  Since sin is in the world we have to keep away from intentional sin. That is also why God require us to be baptized.  It represents a washing away of the old and bringing in the new. God makes more sense.@SkepticalOne
    Plaffelvohfendallased25SkepticalOne
  • dallased25dallased25 303 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1
    Did you not read the Title of the OP. This is about morality, not whether or not it makes sense to believe in a god. Please actually read the title of the OP again and then reply. This post is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. 
  • markemarke 403 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Muslims believe men can murder their wives for reasons that seem moral to them.  Islam has its own rules and morals that do not protect the rights of all men and women.  The US was founded on godly principles espoused by Christians and those principles reflect the best of various morals that can be examined.
  • exconexcon 562 Pts   -   edited July 28
    marke said:

    The US was founded on godly principles espoused by Christians and those principles reflect the best of various morals that can be examined.
    Hello m:

    Nahh... 

    Your Christian morals believe that people should be WAREHOUSED in prison for YEARS because they put NON - SANCTIOND drugs into their own body..   It's ATROCIOUS behavior.  It's anti human.  It's despicable.  It's cruel.  It's IMMORAL..

    And, it's definitely NOT something Jesus would do.

    excon
    SkepticalOnePlaffelvohfen
  • @pamelajohnson1

    This isn't a debate about God, Pam.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @marke

    The US was founded on godly principles

    No, it wasn't. 

    Plaffelvohfenpiloteer
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    In that case Christianity of course. @dallased25
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    Okay Christianity is the moral choice. @SkepticalOne
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1

    Okay Christianity is the moral choice

    Especially the parts in the bible where god approves and lays down the law for keeping slaves and  as quoted and loved  by Christian  slave owners in the US 

    This is the part where you  accuse me of being a demon because you don’t know what’s in your own Bible 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @pamelajohnson1

    How does Christianity make better sense of morality than secular humanism? 
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    @MayCaesar

    Ayn Rand was a huge fan of Dostoevsky. She said the moral principles outlined in his literature easily fit in with objectivism. So Dostoevsky was a devout Christian ,nationalist, socialist, transcendentalist who is widely considered to be the first existential writer (notes from the underground), and he was a huge influence on Ayn Rand who was one of the most renowned atheists who espoused rational objectivism. Christianity, transcendentalism, existentialism, nationalism, and socialism can all be called very much NOT objective, and yet Dostoevskys' influence on Rands' body of work is profound, and kind of ironic. 

    Transcendentalism and existentialism were highly individualistic. The reason transcendentalism is called that is because it does not embrace empiricism, but instead seeks to find a priori to the "fundamental principles of human knowledge", therefore it tries to "transcend" empiricism. Basically, the overall message of transcendentalism is that we are all from the same place. Dostoevsky says we are born from "God's grace", but the message still works if we understand that we are all beings that grew from this earth. This is used as an axiom in transcendentalism which gives it a deeply humanistic aura, and that message is hard to refute as being a priori to empirical observations.   

    Of course morality evolves and is certainly not objective, but I believe a moral principle based on the juxtaposition between Rand and Dostoevsky can be a profoundly robust moral principle. I politely urge you to read, but most likely re-read for you because we know how you Russians love your Dostoevsky, and also look into Henry David Thoreau if you haven't already, and compare them with Rands objectivism and you may find that most of it works in perfect harmony together as Ayn Rand openly claimed.             
    I may be a bad Russian in this respect, as I grew up reading American and English authors. :) That said, I did read Crime and Punishment more than once, which I can say about very few books. Dostoevsky was in many ways a product of his time, and, much like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, most of his ideological problems were caused by the limit of civilizational knowledge and experience at the time - were he alive nowadays, many of his views would likely be very different.

    It is also worth noting that Dostoyevsky's interpretation of Christianity was extremely unorthodox and contrarian as far as the Russian Orthodox Church goes; one could almost call him a deist. He certainly derived a lot of his views not from religious teachings, but from objective observations, although his religiosity certainly colored his interpretations significantly.

    marke said:
    @MayCaesar

    Muslims believe men can murder their wives for reasons that seem moral to them.  Islam has its own rules and morals that do not protect the rights of all men and women.  The US was founded on godly principles espoused by Christians and those principles reflect the best of various morals that can be examined.
    Herein lies the problem: they believe that they can murder their wives. A proper moral system is not about beliefs, but about observations and conclusions. My view that mutually beneficial interactions between people are moral (and the only moral) is not any more of a belief than the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a belief.

    The Christian morals the US was allegedly founded on are incompatible with the values proclaimed in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Even if they were, the fact that they are derived from a fictional omnipotent being and not from objective observations and rigorous logic would make the system unsustainable. It is unsustainable, unfortunately, because, whatever these documents say, people are what they are.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2925 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    Here's my question, why should we need a set moral system to begin with? Isn't a legal system enough? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @SkepticalOne

    Here's my question, why should we need a set moral system to begin with? Isn't a legal system enough? 
    I don't see the need for a codified morality (I'm more interested in the principles upon which morality is built).

    The legal system is morality-adjacent. Some of its laws are built on moral intuitions and some reflect amorality or immorality. 
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • dallased25dallased25 303 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1
    What a surprise that you'd choose christianity...because why think and evaluate morality based upon facts and evidence....when you can just follow an almighty dictator! You are right...we should institute slavery again as sanctioned in the bible! 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @piloteer

                           It is not a novel that should be thrown aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.”

                                              ---- Dorothy Parker about Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand



    but I believe a moral principle based on the juxtaposition between Rand and Dostoevsky can be a profoundly robust moral principle.

    What would such a principle look like? Rand was told Nietzsche had beaten her to her ideas “naturally”.  Philosophy has its uses but is extremely limited and has little practical use in the real world , there is not one thing a philosopher could  take from a seminar and apply in the real world  
    Philosophers are egotistical navel gazers mostly with a few exceptions 

    On a Philosophy forum recently I asked one simple question and was buried immediately in reams of text from several philosophers who of course threw in terms such as …a posteriori , a priori , quali, noumenon (pl..-mena), etc , etc,

    I would be hard put to find a bigger bunch of self centered egotists on the planet , they are only interested it seems in making philosophy as a subject elitist and as deliberately prohibitive as possible 
    How many questions have philosophers resolved since they were first posed ….Zero , it’s like a backslapping club for an elitist bunch to demonstrate who can hold forth using the most deliberately vague and difficult language they can think of 

    One philosopher I really like who makes his points beautifully without the is David Hume who also admitted more or less that philosophy was as it could solve nor resolve anything , I agree



    I fully agree with everything you have said here. Philosophers are egotistical, and Ayn Rand brought that egoism to the next level. One huge reason philosophers reject Ayn Rand as a serious philosopher is because she was so egregiously egotistical. So if all the egotistical philosophers hated Rand because of her ego, that says something about her.

    I do also very much love David Hume, his philosophy is very similar to Buddhism. David Hume is considered the only English speaking philosopher who is among "the great Philosophers". He was also a major influence on transcendentalism. Some consider him to be the first transcendental philosopher. 

    Rands philosophy is objective. It's very sterile. It uses the same methodology as scientific theories. Feelings are useless in her philosophy. It's based on materialism and logic, not emotions. It is highly individualistic.    

    Transcendental philosophy establishes an axiom in a priori  ("priori is a term applied to knowledge considered to be true without being based on previous experience or observation"). 

    Objectivism starts with an empirical hypothesis. Empirical knowledge is knowledge that comes from experience, or more specifically, observations that are made by humans without the need for instruments or tools of measurement, or mathematic measurement, and are observed only with our senses. Once we start needing tools or instruments of measurement, like a telescope or microscope, it becomes objective observations. Rands objectivism was based on that methodology, which is not very common in the history of philosophy, but there are others, like Chomsky who are considered objectivists. 

    The transcendental movement was derived from Christianity and a want for many Christians to have a more spiritual religious connection to their God. They tried to establish axioms in knowledge that was established before birth, like the idea that we are all from the same place (earth), so we are connected to eachother as humans. It is kind of indisputable, but not derived from empirical observations. That axiom existed before we were born. Hence the spiritual nature of it.

    So the objective methodology coupled with the spiritual nature of transcendentalism gives us an artistic, or spiritual outlook coupled with a focused perception of reality that does not give into knee jerk reactionary skepticism for the sake of skepticism. Admittedly it's probably biased by my tailored tastes, but still covers a lot of philosophical ground. 

    In philosophies defense, it is very influential in society. We may not have a sense of it, so we don't realize that we are speaking the rhetoric and language of "postmodernism". An objectivist would say that a philosophy is just that, the rhetoric and mannerisms, taste in humor and culture, and language of a society. Transcendentalists would say philosophy is the idealist principles of a society.         

                        
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 29
    Thanks a lot for your thoughts . Rand always grated for me and I could never get over it that it always sounded like preaching to me as in I’m right everyone else is wrong. 

    I’m a huge philosophy fan when it’s done right but was annoyed after a clash with a truly arrogant philosopher  I’m familiar with most all the terminology etc , etc but prefer to read  philosophy and philosophers who are engaging without this constant need to showboat by couching everything in academic language just for effect 

    I went a bit overboard with my piece I do read a lot of books on Philosophy and enjoy most , I was in a bit of a mood after a clash on Reddit with a really arrogant philosopher who I called out on his reams of to a simply phrased question I asked 

    I like Nietzsche as well as Hume  Nietzsche I loved after I read his casual destruction of the annoying sacred cow Descartes Cogito , A.J Ayer also claimed Descartes was wrong and I enjoyed his simple deconstruction 

    I love Nietzsches quote “ there are no facts only interpretations “ drives people nuts arguing that truth is impossible 

    I just downloaded Dennetts Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking 

    I have 2 books by Stephen law that I love also check out the last link it’s 3 minutes and watch how he brilliantly presents deep philosophical questions , others could learn from it …..


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-Gym-Short-Adventures-Thinking/dp/0747232717


    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Philosophy-Files-Stephen-Law/dp/1444003348/ref=pd_bxgy_img_sccl_1/262-5835626-2567036?pd_rd_w=JiNnr&content-id=amzn1.sym.79b812bf-5c8b-4c0c-851c-784423adaff5&pf_rd_p=79b812bf-5c8b-4c0c-851c-784423adaff5&pf_rd_r=0DHMD088HT9D2NXGZV1Z&pd_rd_wg=XRyyQ&pd_rd_r=002dc7e7-7618-4fae-b495-ac2d7e131e0f&pd_rd_i=1444003348&psc=1



    https://youtu.be/lqEl_mt7Hhk

  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    I know what's in the bible.  There are two forces in this world.  Good and evil.   God and the devil.  Sometimes the devil takes down the good.   Slaves were black people.  The devil hates black people because they are what God started out with. They are the original race.   When the blacks were in the wilderness in the Old Testament, they angered God.  They were told they would be taken into captivity.  That they would be slaves. The same people who were slaves in Egypt, were the same people who were slaves in the USA. @Dee
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    Because things in this life can be overwhelming sometimes.  You have only yourself to rely on.  We are human.  We can die at any time.   We are weak.  We need a strong force to help us through this life.@SkepticalOne
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    The black people angered God.  They were the ones he created from the dust.  They were hard head and stiff necked.  They were told that they would be slaves.  The devil hates black people, because they are the original race.   When you anger God and won't listen, he will let the devil get at you.   He will let you get beaten and battered, but he won't let the devil kill you.  No matter who you are.  He is God.  Your little wisdom is nothing compared to his.  @dallased25
  • Because things in this life can be overwhelming sometimes.  You have only yourself to rely on.  We are human.  We can die at any time.   We are weak.  We need a strong force to help us through this life.@SkepticalOne
    It seems as though you are confusing morality with obedience. 
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1

    Yes as I said and you admit god hates blacks and enslaved them yet you think him worthy of worship ………
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    Why do you twist my words?  You know I did not say God hate black people.  He loves them.  He created them.  They were disobedient in the wilderness as he led them.    They were never satisfied.  Like a father he was getting tired of them wanting to do things on their own.  So, like a father, he let them do as they wanted. So, they got what they got. @Dee
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1


    Why do you twist my words?  You know I did not say God hate black people.  He loves them.  He created them.  They were disobedient in the wilderness as he led them.    They were never satisfied.  Like a father he was getting tired of them wanting to do things on their own.  So, like a father, he let them do as they wanted. So, they got what they got

    So he made black people slaves for life because he loved them which is it ? Where in the Bible does it mention blacks being disobedient ? So god let them do as he wanted but then made them slaves ? You’re making up more bet you cannot back your lies up with the Bible?
  • BoganBogan 168 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Well written, Piloteer.    You do possess a brain.
    piloteer
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  

    15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

    16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.

    17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.

    18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

    19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

    20 The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

    21 The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.

    22 The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.

    23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.

    24 The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

    25 The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.

    26 And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away.

    27 The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.

    28 The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:

    29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.

    30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.


    31 Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them.

    32 Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand.

    33 The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway:

    34 So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.

    35 The Lord shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.

    36 The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.

    37 And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee.

    38 Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather but little in; for the locust shall consume it.

    39 Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for the worms shall eat them.

    40 Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, buthou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olive shall cast his fruit.

    41 Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.

    42 All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume.

    43 The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.

    44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.

    45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:

    46 And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.

    47 Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;

    48 Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the Lord shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.


    49 The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
     50 A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:

    51 And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee.

    52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

    53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

    54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

    55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

    56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

    57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

    58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, The Lord Thy God;

    59 Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

    60 Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee.

    61 Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

    62 And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the Lord thy God.

    63 And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

    64 And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.

    65 And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind:

    66 And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:

    67 In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.

    68 And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.

    @ Dee








  • piloteerpiloteer 1531 Pts   -   edited July 29
    @Dee ;I love Nietzsche, but not for his overall message. I also automatically love any philosopher who is misunderstood and interpreted incorrectly, and he is the winner in that category. Many thought, and some still believe his feelings on the master and slave relationship was that we need to build our society around that relationship and ensure everybody understands which of those categories they belong in. Ummmm.....whoa, that's not even close to what he was actually saying which was that he believed our language should no longer reflect any notions of a master vs slave relationship in our societies because we've moved on from that. It's a proposal that we should change our language (like most of his points were). I also love Nietzsche because he was what we would now call a linguist. His philosophy is based on language.

    But, I think "de-construction" is sometimes just a philosophical trick. And  for someone who is considered to be all about free will and individualism, he doesn't strike me as particularly strong on those notions and actually sometimes he flirts with the idea of collectivism. He is also considered a prophet by some because they say he predicted postmodernism. That's when it gets kinda like, alright guy, come on! The only reason he "predicted" postmodernism was because all his little minion philosophers who idolized him purposely created postmodernism to ensure he would become a prophet. 

    Rand is often misunderstood. Don't get me wrong Ayn Rand WAS all about Ayn Rand, but she believed charitable acts were beautiful and righteous. She believed that a forced government tax on people for charitable reasons no longer made it an act of charity, but an act of theft. She believed the true motivations for charity should be for genuine love and compassion for our fellow humankind, and we should want to do that because that is a naturally righteous ideal, our motivations for it should not be because of a government mandate. She believed we cannot actually ever make people want to do charitable acts of their own free will, we can only ever make rules to make them give the government money, and that's not righteous.     

    Thanx for the recommendation. I'll check out Stephen Law.

      @SkepticalOne ;@Plaffelvohfen

    Sorry for going off topic, but I do want to try and demonstrate how and why law is a morality in and of itself. Just......not now..... because I'm busy. 
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    68 And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.    These people are the same ones who were sold to the USA  @Dee
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1

    Right got ya , listen I know you approve like God and Jesus of owning people as property you don’t have to keep telling me 
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Thank you for your thoughts interesting and illuminating as ever


    I spied your comment to the guys at the end and I to would be interested in hearing your thoughts 

    @SkepticalOne ;@Plaffelvohfen 

    Sorry for going off topic, but I do want to try and demonstrate how and why law is a morality in and of itself. Just......not now..... because I'm busy. 

    law is a morality in and of itself is a subjective viewpoint nothing else I think  Law cannot (to me ) be a morality in and off itself as morality like law is ever evolving and influenced by society which in some cases is termed progressive or regressive depending on how we judge different societies law and morality as in Sharia law. Is Sharia law a morality in an of itself?



    SkepticalOnePlaffelvohfen
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    It was because they were disobedient.  God is God. @Dee
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1

    It was because they were disobedient.

    So gods solution to disobedience is to make people slaves for others to abuse ………and you agree ….WOW!
  • @Dee @piloteer

    Is Sharia law a morality in an of itself?
    Sharia law is a good example of what happens when the lines between morality and law become blurred.


    Dee
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    He doesn't make them slaves.  When those who continue to intentionally sin and do not obey him: he turns his back on them and let Satan do what he wants to with them.  The ones who are not part of his body may be killed, but the ones who are a part of his body will be chastised, but not killed.  In order to be with God, you have to get it right.  You cannot be a part of him and keep wallowing in the filth.   It is what it is.  You are pleased with that, because you know there is a God. @Dee
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 30
    @pamelajohnson1

    He doesn't make them slaves. 

    You said earlier he did ……you’re getting more unstable every day  You are pleased with that as  you know your one true god is Allah 
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
     Right. Well, I can say that he allowed it to happen.  Because he has the last word.  He can choose to turn his back or not.  Allah is not my God.  Jesus is Lord of all.  Every knee shall bow and confess that he is Lord.   He holds every life in his hand, even yours.  Even though you think what you do about him.  He will be the one who decides where you spend eternity, whether you like it or not.   Our wisdom is foolishness to him.  We think that we are smart.  That is laughable to him.  His wisdom surpasses all of our understanding.   Jesus is my Lord.  I have been sentenced for life in Jesus, without parole.  I'm facing life in him. @Dee
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1

     Right. Well, I can say that he allowed it to happen.  Because he has the last word

    Yes I agree , he can approve of slavery , slaughter and suffering because he has the last word !he sounds exactly like the  dear leader in North Korea 

    I have been sentenced for life in Jesus, without parole.  I'm facing life in him

    You truly are barking at the moon mad 

  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    Right mad in Christ.  The difference between God and the leader is Korea is that God is God and the leader in Korea is not.  He will be judge right along with everyone else..  Now you know that the bible is true.  The people in the wilderness were cursed with slavery, and it came to past.  The Old testament was written before Christ. @Dee
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1

    So what? Both are nasty ,vicious and cruel

    The Bible is a book of mostly

    Yes the black people were cursed by your racist god and?

    The old testament was written before Christ , you seem to make it up as you go along 
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -   edited July 31
    @pamelajohnson1

    So what? Both are nasty ,vicious and cruel

    The Bible is a book of  mostly immoral nonsense 

    Yes the black people were cursed by your racist god and?

    The old testament was written before Christ , you seem to make it up as you go along 
  • pamelajohnson1pamelajohnson1 187 Pts   -  
    So, God is God, and he does as he pleases.   That is proof that there is a God.   You have a choice to go against him are join him.  The better choice is to join him.  Don't want to get on his bad side.  @Dee
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 4773 Pts   -  
    @pamelajohnson1

    So, God is God, and he does as he pleases

    So it seems which is why he made blacks slaves as he hates blacks as you  admit 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch